×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 28-Oct-2011 06:32 , Raul A. Jager W. wrote:
I will try this. It is not so easy, because the file has many users
24 x 7.
That statement implies a greater likelihood that either transitory
locks or other non-data locks on the parent file could be the origin.
Unless there is a means to ensure no users or [batch] jobs do not in any
way "touch" the parent file, then the opportunity exists for a
conflicting lock to be established by some another activity.
Even so, given both proper care was taken to remove existing holders
of locks listed in WRKOBJLCK thelib/theparent *file MBR(*NONE) and
having ensured beyond much doubt that no new lock holders would be added
since, plus that one of the diagnostics logged implied a condition of
"logically damaged", the scenario very well may be the result of a
defect. Note too, that the outcome for the equivalent SQL request
[irrespective of isolation\commit level in effect] should have been a
-913 [sql0913], even if some of the logged diagnostic messages would
have been the same as those issued for the ADDPFCST... assuming the
origin is a legitimate case of the parent being unavailable to the
requester of the ALTER to add the referential constraint.
Regards, Chuck
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
